[chef] Re: Re: Re: Using cookbook_name method in cookbooks

[Joshua Timberman < >]

There's a couple other things here.

It was intended, in the `apache2` cookbook, that those attributes would be applicable at that namespace if they were used in, e.g., an `apache1dot3` cookbook. Or in an `apache3` cookbook, should the world come to that.

In some situations we've had attributes that are simply named inconsistently with the cookbooks, usually because of attribute access styles. For example, the `chef-client` cookbook has `node['chef_client']` attributes, because some folks like to use `node[:chef_client]` or node.chef_client to access the methods, and `-` (hyphen/dash) is not legal in Ruby symbols or methods. You'd have to use `node[:'chef-client']`, but then you use the supposed benefit of using a symbol (not having to type quotes).

In other cases, such as with the `sudo` cookbook where the `node['authorization']` attribute is used, there was some forward thinking that didn't pan out. You'd have to search the internet machine, but there have been discussions in the past where the various tool authors/vendors have attempted to get some kind of cohesive default attribute space that explain some of the reasoning behind this.

Hope this helps.

Joshua

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Cliff Pracht < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Yes true, good point  -  the attributes (that you want to change) in wrappers would be a different cookbook name. It wouldn’t make sense to use the method in that case. 

From: Jeff Byrnes
Reply-To: " " target="_blank"> "
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 8:26 AM
To: " " target="_blank"> "
Subject: [chef] Re: Using cookbook_name method in cookbooks

Speculation on my part, but in the context of wrapping a cookbook, wouldn’t the cookbook_name variable become the name of the wrapper cookbook, not the cookbook that the attribute(s) belong to?

-- 

Jeff Byrnes
@thejeffbyrnes

Lead DevOps Engineer

EverTrue

704.516.4628

On March 18, 2015 at 8:23:21 AM, Cliff Pracht ( " target="_blank"> ) wrote:

Hi all,

I’ve noticed in a lot of cookbook code when needing the cookbook name, folks have been using the hard coded string name.

Eg. In the apache cookbook a defined attribute looks something like this where ‘apache’ is listed 100s of times:

#default apache run directory 

 default['apache']['run_dir'] = '/var/run/httpd'

Instead of this:

#default apache run directory 

 default[cookbook_name]['run_dir']  = '/var/run/httpd’

Obviously, changing a cookbook name is not an everyday thing.   However we have a strict naming convention at our shop for cookbooks to clarify the purpose of cookbook (eg. whether the cookbook is a library, wrapper, policy, operating system, etc.).  And have had to change the name frequently initially to get right. 

Any thoughts on doing this?  Are there drawbacks with this?

Thanks,

Cliff